Andrade v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Andrade v. State

483 P.2d 208, 87 Nev. 144, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 372

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 26, 1971

Docket6340

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 483 P.2d 208 (Andrade v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrade v. State, 483 P.2d 208, 87 Nev. 144, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 372 (Neb. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

A jury convicted Andrade of the crime of forgery, NRS 205.090, one element of which is the specific intent to defraud, prejudice or damage another. His appellate claim is that he could not have possessed the specific intent required by statute *145 since he was intoxicated. Of course, voluntary intoxication, though not an excuse for crime, may be considered in determining intent, NRS 193.220, and the court so instructed the jury. We assume that the jury did so. King v. State, 80 Nev. 269, 392 P.2d 310 (1964). In any event there is substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Andrade’s intoxication was not so gross as to preclude his intention to defraud. King v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per Curiam:

A jury convicted Andrade of the crime of forgery, NRS 205.090, one element of which is the specific intent to defraud, prejudice or damage another. His appellate claim is that he could not have possessed the specific intent required by statute *145 since he was intoxicated. Of course, voluntary intoxication, though not an excuse for crime, may be considered in determining intent, NRS 193.220, and the court so instructed the jury. We assume that the jury did so. King v. State, 80 Nev. 269, 392 P.2d 310 (1964). In any event there is substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude that Andrade’s intoxication was not so gross as to preclude his intention to defraud. King v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 P.2d 208, 87 Nev. 144, 1971 Nev. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrade-v-state-nev-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack